ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 25 February 2022
Edited by:
Roy Abraham Kallivayalil,
Pushpagiri Medical College, India
Reviewed by:
Rhett Diessner,
Lewis–Clark State College,
United States
Piers Worth,
Buckinghamshire New University,
United Kingdom
*Correspondence:
Emre Umucu
umucuemr@msu.edu
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Rehabilitation,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Received: 27 January 2022
Accepted: 11 February 2022
Published: 25 February 2022
Citation:
Umucu E, Lee B, Genova HM,
Chopik WJ, Sung C, Yasuoka M and
Niemiec RM (2022) Character
Strengths Across Disabilities: An
International Exploratory Study and
Implications for Positive Psychiatry
and Psychology.
Front. Psychiatry 13:863977.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.863977
Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.863977
Character Strengths Across
Disabilities: An International
Exploratory Study and Implications
for Positive Psychiatry and
Psychology
Emre Umucu 1*, Beatrice Lee 1 , Helen M. Genova 2 , William J. Chopik 3 , Connie Sung 1 ,
Mizuka Yasuoka 1 and Ryan M. Niemiec 4
1
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI,
United States, 2 Center for Neuropsychology and Neuroscience Research, Kessler Foundation, West Orange, NJ,
United States, 3 Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States, 4 Education Director
of the VIA Institute, VIA Institute on Character, Cincinnati, OH, United States
The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in character strengths for
people with disabilities by using an international dataset by the VIA Institiute on Character.
Specifically, we aimed to explore (a) the top and bottom five character strengths reported
by different disability groups and all people with disabilities more broadly, and (b) group
differences in each character strength and total character strengths. The investigator
contacted the VIA Institute on Character (http://www.viacharacter.org/) for obtaining the
dataset for the current study. After data cleaning, our sample size resulted in 11,699
people with disabilities. Among most people with disabilities, the top five character
strengths scores were love of learning, honesty, appreciation of beauty and excellence,
kindness, and fairness. The bottom five character strengths scores were self-regulation,
perseverance, zest, spirituality, and prudence. Knowing that there is heterogeneity in
character strengths across groups gives us a better understanding of the areas that
people with different disabilities and conditions might thrive and provides clinicians and
practitioners with a more nuanced understanding for how to possibly intervene with their
clients. Positive psychiatry and psychology implications are discussed.
Keywords: disability, emotional disabilities, positive psychiatry, positive psychology, chronic condition
INTRODUCTION
According to the World Health Organization (1), over one billion people worldwide are living
with some form of disabilities and chronic conditions, which translates to ∼15% of the world’s
population. The number of people with disabilities is increasing due to simultaneous increases
in chronic health conditions and aging populations (1). People with disabilities can face different
psychosocial challenges, such as functional limitations, secondary health conditions, social stigma,
limited vocational functioning, and compromised community participation (2–8). Therefore, it is
important to examine how to better support people with disabilities and chronic conditions and
facilitate optimal psychosocial functioning through the lens of contemporary approaches such as
positive psychiatry and psychology.
1 February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977
Umucu et al.
Shifting away from the traditional disease and pathology
paradigm, positive psychology emphasizes building positive
qualities rather than exclusively focusing on repairing
weaknesses, aiming to understand what makes life worth
living and enabling human thriving (9). Psychiatry has been
defined as a subfield under medicine focusing on the diagnosis
and treatment of mental illnesses (10). Recently, authors defined
positive psychiatry as “the science and practice of psychiatry that
seeks to understand and promote wellbeing through assessment
and interventions aimed at enhancing behavioral and mental
wellness” [(10), p. 2]. In recent decades, understanding disability
and chronic conditions including mental illnesses has focused
on holistic human functioning and the identification of human
strengths and potentials (11).
Dr. Beatrice Wright, a pioneer in the rehabilitation field,
promoted that psychosocial adjustment to disability and chronic
conditions can be considered from a positive framework and
postulated a coping vs. succumbing framework (12, 13). In
this framework, coping focuses on an individual’s positive
qualities and abilities, whereas succumbing focuses on an
individual’s impairments and deficits (14). Consistent with
the foundations of positive psychology, the rehabilitation
field focuses on individuals with disabilities’ capabilities and
strengths (13, 15). Many studies have examined the effects of
positive psychological characteristics (e.g., hope, resilience) on
functioning and quality of life from a strength-based paradigm
within the disability and rehabilitation field (5, 16–20). In the
current study, we sought to illustrate variation in a particular
classification of positive psychological characteristics—character
strengths—in a large exploratory study of over 11,000 people
with disabilities.
Character strengths are one of the foundations in the
science of positive psychology (21, 22). Character strengths
are defined as positive personality traits that reflect core
identity, produce positive outcomes for oneself and others,
and contribute to the collective good (21). Peterson and
Seligman (23) developed VIA Classification of Character
Strengths and classified 24 character strengths into six virtues:
wisdom (i.e., creativity, curiosity, judgment, love of learning,
perspective), courage (i.e., bravery, honesty, perseverance, zest),
humanity (i.e., kindness, love, social intelligence), justice (i.e.,
fairness, leadership, teamwork), temperance (i.e., forgiveness,
humility, prudence, self-regulation), and transcendence
(i.e., appreciate of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope,
humor, spirituality). Character strengths are the psychological
processes and mechanisms that depict virtues while virtues are
described as the core moral characteristics that are universally
valued (23). There is a large literature on the measurement,
antecedents, and consequences of all 24 character strengths
that suggest they play a critical role in positive psychological
functioning and wellbeing [e.g., (23)]. Besides, Dahlsgaard
et al. [(24), p. 2010] aimed to “create a consensual classification
of human strengths while avoiding the criticism that any
specific list we proposed would be culturally or historically
idiosyncratic (23).” They reported that there is a convergence
across place, time, and intellectual trandition about certain
core virtues.
Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org
Character Strengths
Growing research has examined the role of character strengths
and character strength assessments in various disability groups,
including individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (25, 26), multiple sclerosis [MS; (27)], traumatic
brain injury [TBI; (28)], veterans with and without disabilities
(29), and chronic conditions and disabilities (8). For instance,
Niemiec et al. (25) discussed how building on character strengths
can enhance support systems and quality of life of people
with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Shogren et al.
(26) examined the endorsement and psychometric properties
of the VIA Inventory of Strengths of Youth (VIA-Youth)
by exploring differences between youth with and without
intellectual disability. Smedema (27) found that many character
strengths played roles in the quality of life directly and indirectly
through the negative effects of MS. Hanks et al. (28) found that
character strengths and virtues were moderately associated with
subjective wellbeing in people with mild to severe TBI. Umucu
et al. (8) found that character strengths moderated the association
between COVID-19 stress and the wellbeing among individuals
with chronic conditions and disabilities.
More specifically, researchers have also been interested in
examining the character strengths that were most frequently
reported by people with disabilities. In a sample of adults
with autism spectrum disorder, the most frequently reported
character strengths were open-mindedness, creativity, and love of
learning (30). Having a broader understanding of the character
strengths reported by people with disabilities, including their
commonalities and differences, provides us a broader insight into
their psychological experiences, the sources of their wellbeing and
quality of life, and provide a roadmap for moving forward in
intervention work.
With the WHO’s (1) emphasis on promoting rehabilitation
services (e.g., psychiatric rehabilitation) and the increasing
research attention on how character strengths make an impact
on the lives of people with disabilities and chronic conditions,
the purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the
differences in character strengths for people with disabilities
by using an international dataset by the VIA Institiute on
Character. Specifically, we aimed to explore (a) the top and
bottom five character strengths reported by different disability
groups and all people with disabilities and chronic conditions
more broadly, and (b) group differences in each character
strength and total character strengths. To our knowledge, this is
the first study using a large international sample to explore the
differences in character strengths among people with different
types of disabilities and chronic conditions including emotional
conditions. Given positive psychiatry and psychology focuses
on positive attributes and strengths, the results of the study
will contribute to the existing international positive psychology,
disability, and positive psychiatry literature on the role of
character strengths in people with disabilities.
METHODS
Procedure and Participants
This study was evaluated and approved by the Institutional
Review Board of [blinded for review]. Upon approval of the
2 February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977
Umucu et al.
study, the investigator contacted the VIA Institute on Character
(http://www.viacharacter.org/) for obtaining the dataset for the
current study. After data cleaning, our sample size resulted in
11,699 people with disabilities from across the globe.
Measures
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Sociodemographic characteristics were measured via a
demographic survey. Participants responded to questions
regarding their age, gender, education, employment status,
disability category, urban/rural living status, and countries.
Regarding countries, although most participants reported their
countries; some did not. More than half of the participants were
from the US (>53.9%). There were participants from Canada
(>6.7%), Australia (>6.0%), and United Kingdom (>4.9%), and
Brazil (>3%). There were also participants from numerous other
countries such as France, Estonia, Germany, Denmark, Belgium,
Argentine, Turkey, India, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, South
Africa, and New Zealand.
Character Strengths
VIA Classification of Strengths and Virtues (character strengths)
were measured using the VIA Inventory of Strengths—Positive
[VIA-IS-P; (31)], which is a version of the original VIA-IS
(23) but exclusively uses positively worded items. The VIA-
IS-P consists of a total of 96 items, measuring 24 character
strengths (4 items per character strengths). Each item is rated
on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1(Very Much
Unlike Me) to 5 (Very Much Like Me), with higher scores
indicating higher character strengths. McGrath and Wallace (32)
suggested researchers use the VIA-IS-P when there are concerns
regarding participants’ cognitive capacity to process negatively
worded items. The mean alpha coefficient of the VIA-IS-P across
strengths was 0.78 (32). The mean omega (ω) value of the VIA-
IS-P was 0.78 (32). For our analyses, we examined disability
group differences in each of the 24 character strengths and a
composite measure in which all the character strengths were
averaged together to yield one total score.
Disability Status
Disability status was asked with the following question: “Are
you challenged by any of the following?” Participants had the
option to select any disability status among multiple options
(e.g., traumatic brain injury). We categorized disability types into
eight categories, which included intellectual disabilities, sensory
disabilities, emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments,
other health impairments, specific learning disabilities, traumatic
brain injury, and multiple disabilities.
Data Analysis
We conducted descriptive statistics to identify means and
standard deviations for study variables. We used Shapiro–Wilk
to check for data normality for each character strengths and total
character strength scores. None of the scores fulfilled the criteria
for normal distribution.
Next, we conducted Levene’s test to examine homogeneity
of variance on each dependent variable to test the assumption
Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org
Character Strengths
that individuals in each disability group varied in roughly
homogeneous or similar ways. All of the Levene’s tests were
significant, showing that the groups did not have equal variances.
As parametric assumptions were not met, we conducted a
Kruskal–Wallis, non-parametric alternative to one-way ANOVA,
to assess mean differences in character strengths and total
character strengths among eight disability groups.
Finally, we used Dunn Bonferroni post-hoc tests to determine
specific significant differences among groups. All analyses were
conducted via SPSS 26.0 and DescTools (33), GmAMisc (34), and
ggpubr (35) using the R Software (36).
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
The majority of participants (∼71%) were in the age range of
25–54. Most participants were women (72.3%), followed by men
(25.7%) and others (2.0%). Regarding participants’ education,
about 72% of participants had at least a bachelor’s degree. About
81% of participants were employed. Only 14.7% of participants
reported they live in rural area. Regarding disability group, most
participants had multiple disabilities (26.7%), followed by other
health impairments (26.4%), emotional disturbance (23.1%),
sensory disabilities (11.5%), specific learning disability (4.8%),
orthopedic impairment (3.6%), intellectual disability (2.6%), and
traumatic brain injury (1.2%). Table 1 demonstrates means and
SDs for variables across disability groups.
Character Strengths Profiles
We created character strengths profiles for each disability based
on participants’ mean scores for each CS scores. Figures 1, 2
demonstrate character strengths profiles for each disability group
and overall character strengths profile. Figure 3 represents radar
chart for disability groups by character strengths.
Intellectual Disability Group (IDG; 2.6%)
Among people with intellectual disabilities, the top five character
strengths scores were love of learning, honesty, fairness,
judgment, and appreciation of beauty and excellence. The bottom
five character strengths scores were self-regulation, perseverance,
zest, spirituality, and leadership.
Sensory Disability Group (SDG; 11.5%)
Among individuals with sensory disabilities, the top five
character strengths scores were honesty, love of learning, fairness,
appreciation of beauty and excellence, and kindness. The bottom
five character strengths scores were self-regulation, perseverance,
zest, spirituality, and bravery.
Emotional Disturbances Group (EDG; 23.1%)
Among people with emotional disturbances, the top five
character strengths scores were appreciation of beauty and
excellence, love of learning, kindness, honesty, and fairness. The
bottom five character strengths scores were self-regulation, zest,
perseverance, spirituality, and hope.
3 February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977
Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org

Umucu et al.
TABLE 1 | Demographic information and character strengths group characteristics and differences.

Characteristics Intellectual Sensory Emotional Orthopedic Other health Specific learning Traumatic brain Multiple Test
disabilities (IDG) disabilities (SDG) disturbances impairments impairment n = disabilities injury (TBIG) n = disabilities
n = 306 n = 1,341 (EDG) n = 2,705 (OIG) n = 426 3,090 (SLDG) n = 565 139 (MDG) n = 3,127

Women, n (%) 177 (57.8) 888 (66.2) 2,066 (76.4) 301 (70.7) 2,282 (73.9) 399 (70.6) 101 (72.7) 2,249 (71.9) p < 0.05a
Virtues and Character Strengths Group Differences
Testb
Wisdom, mean (SD) 19.57 (2.35) 19.31 (2.31) 18.89 (2.49) 19.43 (2.46) 19.38 (2.39) 19.49 (2.29) 19.89 (2.45) 19.40 (2.51) Ha = 96.46*
Creativity, mean (SD) 3.72 (0.87) 3.55 (0.79) 3.54 (0.82) 3.64 (0.77) 3.63 (0.82) 3.73 (0.81) 3.79 (0.79) 3.71 (0.80) Ha =93.60*
Curiosity, mean (SD) 3.93 (0.72) 3.90 (0.67) 3.77 (0.74) 3.91 (0.72) 3.89 (0.71) 4.00 (0.67) 4.01 (0.69) 3.89 (0.73) Ha = 82.74*
Judgment, mean (SD) 3.96 (0.62) 3.88 (0.58) 3.77 (0.64) 3.88 (0.63) 3.88 (0.59) 3.80 (0.59) 3.90 (0.58) 3.84 (0.63) Ha = 61.70*
Love of learning, mean (SD) 4.13 (0.66) 4.07 (0.65) 3.98 (0.72) 4.06 (0.67) 4.07 (0.68) 4.05 (0.65) 4.22 (0.65) 4.07 (0.69) Ha = 49.38*
Perspective, mean (SD) 3.81 (0.71) 3.88 (0.65) 3.81 (0.70) 3.93 (0.65) 3.89 (0.66) 3.88 (0.66) 3.95 (0.71) 3.87 (0.71) Ha = 28.88*
Courage, mean (SD) 13.30 (2.28) 13.78 (2.13) 12.80 (2.15) 2.17 (2.25) 13.37 (2.25) 13.53 (2.02) 14.44 (1.99) 13.17 (2.38) Ha = 282.81*
Bravery, mean (SD) 3.42 (0.84) 3.39 (0.77) 3.37 (0.81) 3.50 (0.75) 3.46 (0.81) 3.56 (0.75) 3.69 (0.80) 3.51 (0.83) Ha = 90.55*
Honesty, mean (SD) 3.98 (0.63) 4.09 (0.59) 3.93 (0.66) 4.09 (0.61) 4.03 (0.64) 3.96 (0.62) 4.25 (0.57) 4.00 (0.67) Ha = 91.94*
Perseverance, mean (SD) 2.89 (0.89) 3.09 (0.86) 2.76 (0.87) 3.10 (0.82) 2.85 (0.89) 2.73 (0.77) 3.20 (0.77) 2.77 (0.94) Ha = 211.03*
Zest, mean (SD) 3.00 (0.96) 3.21 (0.83) 2.73 (0.87) 3.18 (0.88) 3.01 (0.90) 3.28 (0.83) 3.29 (0.84) 2.87 (0.96) Ha = 408.61*
Humanity, mean (SD) 10.69 (2.18) 11.37 (1.71) 11.37 (1.76) 11.60 (1.73) 11.59 (1.73) 11.66 (1.65) 11.75 (1.72) 11.55 (1.82) Ha = 87.21*
Kindness, mean (SD) 3.91 (0.68) 3.98 (0.63) 3.97 (0.65) 4.03 (0.63) 4.02 (0.63) 4.06 (0.57) 4.03 (0.69) 4.08 (0.63) Ha = 54.96*
4

Love, mean (SD) 3.35 (1.12) 3.65 (0.92) 3.58 (0.96) 3.68 (0.92) 3.71 (0.93) 3.71 (0.92) 3.82 (0.84) 3.65 (0.97) Ha = 55.27*
Social intelligence, mean (SD) 3.43 (0.90) 3.73 (0.68) 3.81 (0.69) 3.88 (0.63) 3.85 (0.67) 3.89 (0.68) 3.89 (0.68) 3.81 (0.71) Ha = 98.37*
Justice, mean (SD) 10.53 (1.86) 11.08 (1.57) 10.66 (1.67) 11.17 (1.56) 11.02 (1.63) 11.19 (1.49) 11.46 (1.76) 10.85 (1.75) Ha =144.57*
Fairness, mean (SD) 3.98 (0.69) 4.00 (0.66) 3.89 (0.74) 4.00 (0.63) 4.00 (0.69) 4.02 (0.67) 4.12 (0.67) 3.98 (0.71) Ha = 45.77*
Leadership, mean (SD) 3.15 (1.03) 3.46 (0.87) 3.31 (0.92) 3.61 (0.88) 3.47 (0.89) 3.56 (0.82) 3.65 (0.96) 3.38 (0.93) Ha =118.40*
Teamwork, mean (SD) 3.39 (0.81) 3.61 (0.69) 3.46 (0.73) 3.54 (0.65) 3.54 (0.72) 3.60 (0.67) 3.69 (0.66) 3.48 (0.76) Ha = 72.83*
Temperance, mean (SD) 13.36 (2.15) 13.81 (2.02) 13.07 (2.15) 13.75 (2.05) 13.43 (2.14) 13.05 (2.05) 13.86 (2.05) 13.19 (2.28) Ha = 156.20*
Forgiveness, mean (SD) 3.58 (0.79) 3.67 (0.73) 3.54 (0.77) 3.72 (0.68) 3.68 (0.75) 3.71 (0.70) 3.65 (0.69) 3.63 (0.78) Ha = 64.65*
Humility, mean (SD) 3.47 (0.72) 3.59 (0.67) 3.51 (0.73) 3.49 (0.65) 3.54 (0.71) 3.44 (0.71) 3.60 (0.67) 3.51 (0.72) Ha = 26.44*
Prudence, mean (SD) 3.43 (0.85) 3.55 (0.79) 3.37 (0.88) 3.51 (0.83) 3.43 (0.83) 3.24 (0.82) 3.52 (0.81) 3.36 (0.88) Ha = 85.74*
Self-regulation, mean (SD) 2.87 (0.87) 2.99 (0.84) 2.63 (0.89) 3.02 (0.84) 2.76 (0.90) 2.64 (0.84) 3.08 (0.87) 2.68 (0.93) Ha = 232.17*
February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977

Transcendence, mean (SD) 17.62 (3.06) 18.42 (2.72) 17.18 (2.90) 18.68 (2.92) 18.14 (2.97) 18.16 (2.71) 17.91 (3.10) 17.91 (3.10) Ha = 273.37*
Appreciation of beauty and 3.93 (0.84) 3.99 (0.70) 4.01 (0.73) 4.06 (0.70) 4.02 (0.73) 4.00 (0.72) 4.14 (0.69) 4.05 (0.74) Ha = 21.20*
excellence, mean (SD)
Gratitude, mean (SD) 3.34 (0.86) 3.64 (0.78) 3.26 (0.83) 3.64 (0.83) 3.53 (0.84) 3.53 (0.78) 3.80 (0.78) 3.42 (0.88) Ha = 284.89*
Hope, mean (SD) 3.49 (0.83) 3.68 (0.72) 3.19 (0.84) 3.71 (0.75) 3.54 (0.81) 3.60 (0.74) 3.78 (0.70) 3.44 (0.87) Ha = 501.52*
Humor, mean (SD) 3.71 (0.90) 3.73 (0.86) 3.57 (0.92) 3.84 (0.92) 3.74 (0.86) 3.78 (0.85) 3.75 (0.87) 3.72 (0.89) Ha = 82.37*

Character Strengths
Spirituality, mean (SD) 3.13 (1.11) 3.35 (1.01) 3.14 (1.01) 3.41 (1.02) 3.28 (1.04) 3.23 (1.01) 3.55 (0.97) 3.33 (1.03) Ha = 87.84*
Character strengths, mean (SD) 85.10 (9.84) 87.80 (9.24) 84.00 (9.40) 88.55 (9.86) 86.95 (9.80) 87.11 (8.69) 90.48 (9.22) 86.08 (10.57) Ha = 255.79*

a Chi-square test.
b Kruskal–Wallis H test. *p < 0.05.
Umucu et al. Character Strengths

FIGURE 1 | Character strengths profiles for each disability group.

Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org 5 February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977

Umucu et al.
FIGURE 2 | Overall character strengths profile. TBI, Traumatic brain injury; OI, Orthopedic impairment; SD, Sensory disabilities; SLD, Speech-language disabilities;
OHI, Other health impairments; MD, multiple disabilities; IDD, Intellectual disabilities; ED, Emotional disturbance.
Orthopedic Impairment Group (OIG; 3.6%)
Among people with orthopedic disabilities, the top five character
strengths scores were honesty, love of learning, appreciation
of beauty and excellence, kindness, and fairness. The bottom
five character strengths scores were self-regulation, perseverance,
zest, spirituality, and humility.
Other Health Impairments Group (OHIG; 26.4%)
Among people with other health impairments, the top five
character strengths scores were love of learning, honesty,
appreciation of beauty and excellence, kindness, and fairness.
The bottom five character strengths scores were self-regulation,
perseverance, zest, spirituality, and prudence.
Specific Learning Disabilities Group (SLDG; 4.8%)
Among people with specific learning disabilities, the top five
character strengths scores were love of learning, honesty, fairness,
judgment, and appreciation of beauty and excellence. The bottom
five character strengths scores were self-regulation, perseverance,
zest, spirituality, and leadership.
Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org
Character Strengths
Traumatic Brain Injury Group (TBIG; 1.2%)
Among people with TBI, the top five character strengths
scores were honesty, love of learning, appreciation of beauty
and excellence, fairness, and kindness. The bottom five
character strengths scores were self-regulation, perseverance,
zest, prudence, and spirituality.
Multiple Disability Group (MDG; 26.7%)
Among people with multiple disabilities, the top five character
strengths scores were kindness, love of learning, appreciation
of beauty and excellence, honesty, and fairness. The bottom
five character strengths scores were self-regulation, perseverance,
zest, spirituality, and prudence.
Summary
Among all people with disabilities, the top five character
strengths scores were love of learning, honesty, appreciation
of beauty and excellence, kindness, and fairness. The bottom
five character strengths scores were self-regulation, perseverance,
zest, spirituality, and prudence.
6 February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977
Umucu et al. Character Strengths

FIGURE 3 | Radar chart for disability groups by character strengths. TBI, Traumatic brain injury; OI, Orthopedic impairment; SD, Sensory disabilities; SLD,
Speech-language disabilities; OHI, Other health impairments; MD, multiple disabilities; IDD, Intellectual disabilities; ED, Emotional disturbance.

Group Differences in Character Strengths
Score
Kruskal–Wallis test results revealed that there were statistically
significant differences in total character strengths score among
the eight disability groups, χ 2 (7) = 255.78, p < 0.05. Please see
Appendix for group differences in each character strength score.
Dunn Bonferroni post-hoc Analyses
Follow-up Dunn’s pos-hoc tests were conducted to examine
pairwise differences among the disability groups. Significance
values have been adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for
multiple tests. Regarding total character strengths (CS) total
scores, SDG [mean rank difference (MRD) = 924.44, p < 0.05],
OIG (MRD = 1255.23, p < 0.05), OHIG (MRD = 662.52, p <
0.05), and TBIG (MRD = 1864.94, p < 0.05) had significantly
higher CS total scores compared with IDG. SDG (MRD =
1298.14, p < 0.05), OIG (MRD = 1628.94, p < 0.05), OHIG
(MRD = 1036.23, p < 0.05), SLDG (MRD = 1073.41, p < 0.05),
TBIG (MRD = 2238.65, p < 0.05), and MDG (MRD = 722.90,
p < 0.05) had significantly higher CS total scores compared
with EDG. OHIG (MRD = −592.71, p < 0.05) had significantly
lower CS total score compared with OIG. TBIG had significantly
higher CS total scores compared with OHIG (MRD = 1202.41,
p < 0.05), SDG (MRD = 940.50, p < 0.05), and SLDG (MRD
= 1165.23, p < 0.05). MDG had significantly lower CS total
scores than SDG (MRD = −575.24, p < 0.05), OIG (MRD
= −906.03, p < 0.05), OHIG (MRD = −313.32, p < 0.05),
and TBIG (MRD = −1515.74, p < 0.05). Please see Appendix
and Table 1 for Dunn Bonferroni post-hoc Analyses results for
each CS.

Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org 7 February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977

Umucu et al.
DISCUSSION
This study is the first attempt, to our knowledge, to examine
character strengths in individuals across a wide range of disability
and chronic condition groups around the world. Growing
research has suggested that positive approaches to psychological
treatment (such as increasing awareness and usage of character
strengths) in individuals with disabilities may be a powerful asset
in meeting therapeutic goals and increasing quality of life and
wellbeing (8, 11, 25, 29). An alternative to deficit-based methods,
which attempt to reduce negative behaviors or symptoms
associated with a given disability, character strengths provide
a language with which individuals can focus on the aspects
of themselves that potentially benefit themselves and society
(25). The current study used a well-validated and widely-used
classification system and its measurement tool, the VIA Inventory
of Strengths, in a large international sample across multiple
disability types, including emotional conditions and disabilities.
One of the strengths of the study was the inclusion of
individuals with physical, cognitive, and emotional disabilities.
In addition, disabilities occurring at different developmental
stages of life are represented in the sample. For example,
intellectual disabilities, like autism, constitute disabilities that
emerge relatively early in life and have an enduring presence. The
character strengths of individuals with these disabilities might
differ compared to individuals with more acute or sudden/adult-
onset disabilities, like a traumatic brain injury. Interestingly, we
found that commonly reported character strengths in individuals
with disabilities include love of learning, honesty, appreciation
of beauty and excellence, kindness, and fairness. We found that
the least commonly reported strengths in our disability sample
included self-regulation, perseverance, zest, spirituality, and
prudence. A previous study (27) found the top five strengths were
honesty, kindness, fairness, humor, and gratitude, and the bottom
five strengths were forgiveness, humility, spirituality, zest, and
self-regulation in people with multiple sclerosis. In another study,
authors found that the most common character strengths were
curiosity, fairness, kindness, judgment, honesty, and leadership,
while the least common character strengths were zest, prudence,
perseverance, humility, hope, self-regulation, and spirituality in
people with dysclexia (37). These results are partially consistent
with our findings; however, it is also important to highlight that
the most and least common character strengths may change
based on disability groups.
Generally, individuals within the TBI group rated their
strengths higher overall than other disability groups. For
example, the TBI group’s endorsements of creativity, curiosity,
love of learning, bravery, honesty, perseverance, zest, love,
social intelligence, fairness, leadership, prudence, self-regulation,
gratitude, hope, and spirituality were significantly higher
compared to other disability groups. The only character
strength in which the TBI group was lower than others
was teamwork, in which they were significantly lower than
the MDG group, but significantly higher than IDG group.
No significant differences were observed between TBI and
other disability groups in judgement, perspective, kindness,
forgiveness, humility, appreciation of beauty, excellence, and
Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org
Character Strengths
humor. These findings may provide some interesting avenues of
future research in the TBI field. Given that individuals with TBI
can often experience mood issues (38, 39), reduced quality of life
(40–42), and reduced wellbeing (43), using character strengths
knowledge and awareness appears to be an interesting treatment
avenue to address these concerns.
One important consideration is that individuals with TBI
can have significant self-awareness issues, including both under-
and overestimating their skills and abilities (44–46). Therefore,
endorsing strengths higher than other comparison groups may be
indicative of this phenomenon. However, it would not be useful
to dismiss these endorsements as “self-awareness” discrepancies
in the TBI group. Rather, in the future, it may be useful to
also assess the strengths of an individual with TBI through the
perceptions of a trusted “other” who may give a realistic profile
of an individual’s strengths (e.g., friends, family). Having both the
perception of the client as well as a significant other may elucidate
which strengths the person expresses in daily life, which may aid
in development of therapeutic goals, and which strengths might
be inflated because of their limitations in accurately evaluating
their strengths.
Those with emotional disturbances reported lower character
strengths than other disability groups, which may reflect the
poorer self-esteem and lower self-concept commonly observed
in those with depression and anxiety. This lower endorsement of
character strengths, however, may also provide an opportunity
for clinicians to utilize strength identification in their therapy
goals. Those with emotional disturbance may be less aware of
strengths and therefore merely the identification of strengths may
be a powerful exercise.
Another group with low endorsement of character strengths
was the IDG group. There is a growing consensus in the field
of intellectual disabilities, including autism, that using only a
deficit-based approach when treating individuals with autism
can compromise self-esteem and leave individuals unaware of
their strengths. Therefore, recently a shift has emerged in the
autism field to focus on not only strength-based approaches but
character strengths-based approaches (25, 30, 47). Our findings
indicated lower strength ratings in this group compared to other
disability groups indicates that indeed, strength identification
needs bolstering in this group. Interestingly, their love of learning
endorsements was higher than other disability groups, which may
reflect a commonly reported trait of autism: restricted interests.
Specifically, those with autism may seek information about a
restricted topic to a greater degree than what is typically observed
in others, which is generally referred to as a “symptom” or
“challenge.” However, reframing this trait as a love of learning
may be beneficial as it could help autistic individuals, as well as
others, understand how this trait may benefit society as well.
Some strength endorsements may reflect the commonly
observed traits in individuals with disabilities. For example, low
levels of zest, which was consistently one of the lowest reported
strengths of the current study may be correlated with significant
fatigue levels observed in individuals with disabilities. Fatigue is
one of the most commonly reported symptoms in clinical care in
the general population and is one of the most commonly reported
symptoms in individuals with illness or disability. Thus, low
8 February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977
Umucu et al.
levels of zest may be related to the significant feelings of fatigue
felt by this population. In addition, previous literature reported
that zest was one of the lowest five character strengths among
university students (48) and people with disabilities (27). While
increasing zest may represent a treatment target for positive
psychology interventions, it may also be helpful for clinicians
to keep in mind that chronic fatigue due to illness, disability,
comorbidity, medications, and other reasons may make it
difficult for certain disability groups to unilaterally increase their
zest and energy levels. Rather, setting goals and working on
the strengths of perseverance or self-regulation may be more
useful, as they involve making choices to overcome obstacles
or making choices (such as conserving energy). Together, these
proximal goals may be more realistic for someone suffering
from fatigue.
Our study findings may provide some significant clinical
implications for the use of character strengths interventions in
the fields of rehabilitation, psychiatry, and psychology for people
with disabilities and chronic conditions. Previous research has
demonstrated positive associations between character strengths
and subjective health status (49). In a cross-cultural longitudinal
study, researchers found that using character strengths is not only
beneficial for self-perceived physical health when going through
difficult situations, but using strengths is also for enhancing
meaning in life, social connectedness, and mental health (50).
Given the association between character strengths and health
outcomes, clinicians may include interventions such as using
signatures in a new way or identifying signature strengths (51)
and strengths reframing and the aware-explore-apply model of
strengths (25) when working with people with disabilities. By
helping people with disabilities and chronic conditions identify
and utilize their personal character strengths, this may potentially
improve their perceived health, psychosocial functioning, and
quality of life.
In addition, given this is an international study with multiple
countries and disabilities [we consider each disability category
as a cultural subgroup (e.g., deaf culture)], it is important to
consider cross-cultural and demographic differences in character
strengths. If each disability subgroup is considered a cultural
subgorup, we suggest each disability group may, on average,
have different top and bottom character strengths. For example,
people with physical disabilities may experience or express
character strengths different compared to people with psychiatric
disabilities, just as individuals from different countries and
cultures may express character strengths in a different ways
reflecting their culture.
Positive psychiatry and psychology aims to examine positive
attributes and strengths (10). Besides, positive psychiatry
researchers focuses on protective psychosocial factors in chronic
conditions. Given our research (a) identifies and describes
character strengths in people with chronic conditions, including
emotional conditions and (b) demonstrates the top and
bottom character strengths among different disability subgroups,
findings from this study may contribute to clinical and research
practice. This research will help health professionals understand
what character strengths are being used among people with
different disabilities, which could be helpful in developing
tailored and personalized interventions.
Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org
Character Strengths
There are several limitations that should be considered in this
study. The study comprised a convenience sample of individuals
with self-reported disabilities, and some participants may not
have accurately reported their disability status. As functional
and cognitive abilities were not directly assessed, participants’
responses may not accurately reflect their perceived character
strengths and virtues when navigating an online survey. Further,
the ability to complete the survey (and even have access to
the survey) assumes that we may have recruited a higher
functioning sample; however, there was no way to evaluate this
concern. We interpreted the findings by considering that people
with learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and TBI may
have experienced difficulties understanding some concepts and
questions. The majority of participants were women, had at
least a bachelor’s degree, and were employed, which could also
limit the generalizability of this study’s findings to the general
disability population. Another limitation in this study was that
participants were categorized into eight disability groups. A
more systematic way of categorizing various disabilities could
be beneficial. Also, some specific disability types may have been
left out and not enough participants were present in different
countries for us to formally model between-country variation in
the disability group differences that we observed. Future studies
are warranted to further examine character strengths in people
with disabilities around the globe. We interpreted the findings
considering the demographic characteristics of the respondents.
For example, the majority of participants were in the age range
of 25–54. Therefore, we cannot generalize our findings for all
age groups. Similarly, the majority of participants were women,
which decreases our ability to generalize our findings. Gender
differences are especially important given previous research
reported that women typically score higher on strengths than
men although the top five strengths were similar among men and
women (52).
In conclusion, it is important to highlight that we comment
on what has been established in this unique data set and also
summarize future considerations to be explored although we are
aware that there are many important points to be highlighted
in this study. Character strengths has been recently examined
in different disability populations (3, 8, 25, 53, 54). In addition
to other studies, our study provided a greater understanding
of character strengths in a heterogeneous international sample
of individuals with disabilities. Overall, this sample of people
with disabilities reported their top five character strengths as
love of learning, honesty, appreciation of beauty and excellence,
kindness, and fairness, and reported their bottom five character
strengths as self-regulation, perseverance, zest, spirituality, and
prudence. Knowing that there is heterogeneity in character
strengths across groups gives us a better understanding of
the areas that people with different disabilities might thrive
and provides clinicians and practitioners with a more nuanced
understanding for how to possibly intervene with their clients.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author/s.
9 February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977
Umucu et al.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and
intellectual contribution to the work and approved it
for publication.
REFERENCES
1. World Health Organization [WHO]. Disability and Health. (2020). Available
online at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-
health.
2. Bezyak JL, Sabella S, Hammel J, McDonald K, Jones RA, Barton
D. Community participation and public transportation barriers
experienced by people with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. (2020)
42:3275–83. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1590469
3. Lee B. A serial mediation model of gratitude on life satisfaction
in people with multiple sclerosis: the intermediary role of perceived
stress and mental health symptoms. Mult Scler Relat Disord. (2021)
103421. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2021.103421
4. Lee B, Tansey TN, Chan F, Bishop M, Hoyt WT, Hancock LM.
Exploration of the effects of protective person–environment factors between
functional impairments and stress in individuals with multiple sclerosis:
mediation and moderation analyses. Rehabil Couns Bull. (2022) 65:95–
107. doi: 10.1177/00343552211025534
5. Tansey TN, Smedema S, Umucu E, Iwanaga K, Wu JR, Cardoso E,
et al. Assessing college life adjustment of students with disabilities:
application of the PERMA framework. Rehabil Couns Bull. (2018) 61:131–
42. doi: 10.1177/0034355217702136
6. Umucu E. Functional limitations and worrying to lose employment among
individuals with chronic conditions and disabilities during COVID-19:
a hierarchical logistic regression model. J Vocat Rehabil. (2021) 54:25–
32. doi: 10.3233/JVR-201114
7. Umucu E, Lee B. Examining the impact of COVID-19 on stress and coping
strategies in individuals with disabilities and chronic conditions. Rehabil
Psychol. (2020) 65:193–8. doi: 10.1037/rep0000328
8. Umucu E, Tansey TN, Brooks J, Lee B. The protective role of character
strengths in COVID-19 stress and well-being in individuals with chronic
conditions and disabilities: an exploratory study. Rehabil Couns Bull. (2021)
64:67–74. doi: 10.1177/0034355220967093
9. Seligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: an introduction. Am
Psychol. (2000) 55:5–14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
10. Jeste DV, Palmer BW, Rettew DC, Boardman S. Positive psychiatry: Its time
has come. J Clin Psychiatry. (2015) 76:675–83. doi: 10.4088/JCP.14nr09599
11. Wehmeyer ML. The future of positive psychology and disability. Front
Psychol. (2021) 12:790506. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790506
12. Martz E, Hanoch H. Coping with Chronic Illness and Disability:
Theoretical, Empirical, and Clinical Aspects. New York: Springer.
(2007). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-48670-3
13. Martz E, Livneh H. Psychosocial adaptation to disability within the context
of positive psychology: findings from the literature. J Occup Rehabil. (2016)
25:4–12. doi: 10.1007/s10926-015-9598-x
14. Wright BA. Physical Disability: A Psychosocial Approach. 2nd ed. New York:
Harper and Row (1983). doi: 10.1037/10589-000
15. Chou CC, Chan F, Phillips B, Chan JYC. Introduction to positive
psychology in rehabilitation. Rehabilit Res Policy Educ. (2013) 27:126–
30. doi: 10.1891/2168-6653.27.3.126
16. Edwards KA, Alschuler KA, Ehde DM, Battalio SL, Jensen MP.
Changes in resilience predict function in adults with physical
disabilities: a longitudinal study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2017)
98:329–36. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.09.123
17. Madan S, Pakenham KI. The stress-buffering effects of hope
on adjustment to multiple sclerosis. Int J Behav Med. (2014)
21:877–90. doi: 10.1007/s12529-013-9384-0
Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org
Character Strengths
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.
2022.863977/full#supplementary-material
18. Sanchez J, Muller V, Chan F, Brooks JM, Iwanaga K, Tu WM,
et al. Personal and environmental contextual factors as mediators
between functional disability and quality of life in adults with
serious mental illness: a cross-sectional analysis. Qual Life Res. (2019)
28:441–50. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-2006-1
19. Umucu E, Villegas D, Viramontes R, Jung H, Lee B. Measuring grit in veterans
with mental illnesses: examining the model structure of grit. Psychiatr Rehabil
J. (2020) 44:87–92. doi: 10.1037/prj0000420
20. Lee B, Kaya C, Chen X, Wu JR, Iwanaga K, Umucu E, et al.
The buffering effect of character strengths on depression. Eur
J Health Psychol. (2020) 26:101–9. doi: 10.1027/2512-8442/a0
00036
21. Niemiec RM. Finding the golden mean: the overuse, underuse, and
optimal use of character strengths. Couns Psychol Q. (2019) 32:453–
71. doi: 10.1080/09515070.2019.1617674
22. Park N, Peterson C, Seligman MEP. Strengths of character and well-being. J
Soc Clin Psychol. (2004) 23:603–19. doi: 10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748
23. Peterson C, Seligman MEP. Character Strengths and Virtues: A Classification
and Handbook. Oxford University Press (2004).
24. Dahlsgaard K, Peterson C, Seligman ME. Shared virtue: the convergence of
valued human strengths across culture and history. Rev Gen Psychol. (2005)
9:203–13. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.203
25. Niemiec RM, Shogren KA, Wehmeyer ML. Character strengths and
intellectual and developmental disability: a strengths-based approach from
positive psychology. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil. (2017) 52:13–25.
26. Shogren KA, Shaw LA, Raley SK, Wehmeyer ML, Niemiec RM, Adkins M.
Assessing character strengths in youth with intellectual disability: reliability
and factorial validity of the VIA-Youth. Intellect Dev Disabil. (2018) 56:13–
29. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-56.1.13
27. Smedema SM. An analysis of the relationship of character strengths and
quality of life in persons with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. (2020) 29:1259–
70. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02397-1
28. Hanks RA, Rapport LJ, Waldron-Perrine B, Millis SR. Role of character
strengths in outcome after mild complicated to severe traumatic brain
injury: a positive psychology study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2014) 95:2096–
102. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.017
29. Umucu E, Wu J-R, Sanchez J, Brooks JM, Chiu C-Y,
Tu W-M, et al. Psychometric validation of the PERMA-
profiler as a well-being measure for student veterans. J Am
Coll Health. (2020) 68:271–7. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.15
46182
30. Kirchner J, Ruch W, Dziobek I. Brief report: character strengths in adults
with autism spectrum disorder without intellectual impairment. J Autism Dev
Disord. (2016) 46:3330–7. doi: 10.1007/s10803-016-2865-7
31. McGrath RE. Technical report: The VIA Assessment Suite for Adults:
Development and initial evaluation (rev. ed.). Cincinnati, OH: VIA Institute
on Character (2019).
32. McGrath RE, Wallace N. Cross-validation of the VIA inventory of
strengths-revised and its short forms. J Pers Assess. (2021) 103:120–
31. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2019.1705465
33. Signorell. DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics. R package version
0.99.42. (2021).
34. Alberti. GmAMisc: ’Gianmarco Alberti’ Miscellaneous. R package version 1.2.0
(2021). Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=GmAMisc.
35. Kassambara. ggpubr: ’ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. R package
version 0.4.0 (2020). Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=ggpubr.
10 February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977
Umucu et al.
36. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2021). Available
online at: https://www.R-project.org/.
37. Kannangara CS, Carson J, Puttaraju S, Allen RE. Not all those who wander are
lost: examining the character strengths of dyslexia. Glob J Intellect Dev Disabil.
(2018) 4:86–93. Available online at: https://juniperpublishers.com/gjidd/pdf/
GJIDD.MS.ID.555648.pdf
38. Hoofien D, Gilboa A, Vakil E, Donovick PJ. Traumatic brain injury
(TBI) 10? 20 years later: a comprehensive outcome study of psychiatric
symptomatology, cognitive abilities and psychosocial functioning. Brain
Injury. (2001) 15:189–209. doi: 10.1080/026990501300005659
39. Scholten AC, Haagsma JA, Cnossen MC, Olff M, Van Beeck EF, Polinder
S. Prevalence of and risk factors for anxiety and depressive disorders after
traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. J Neurotrauma. (2016) 33:1969–
94. doi: 10.1089/neu.2015.4252
40. Draper K, Ponsford J, Schönberger M. Psychosocial and emotional outcomes
10 years following traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. (2007)
22:278–87. doi: 10.1097/01.HTR.0000290972.63753.a7
41. Forslund MV, Roe C, Sigurdardottir S, Andelic N. Predicting health-related
quality of life 2 years after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. Acta
Neurol Scand. (2013) 128:220–7. doi: 10.1111/ane.12130
42. Hawthorne G, Gruen RL, Kaye AH. Traumatic brain injury and long-term
quality of life: findings from an Australian study. J Neurotrauma. (2009)
26:1623–33. doi: 10.1089/neu.2008.0735
43. Payne L, Hawley L, Ketchum JM, Philippus A, Eagye CB, Morey
C, et al. Psychological well-being in individuals living in the
community with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury. (2018)
32:980–5. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2018.1468573
44. Bivona U, Riccio A, Ciurli P, Carlesimo GA, Delle Donne V, Pizzonia E, et al.
Low self-awareness of individuals with severe traumatic brain injury can lead
to reduced ability to take another person’s perspective. J Head Trauma Rehabil.
(2014) 29:151–71. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3182864f0b
45. Goverover Y, Chiaravalloti N. The impact of self-awareness
and depression on subjective reports of memory, quality-of-life
and satisfaction with life following TBI. Brain Injury. (2014)
28:174–80. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2013.860474
46. Pettemeridou E, Kennedy MR, Constantinidou F. Executive functions,
self-awareness and quality of life in chronic moderate-to-severe
TBI. Neurorehabilitation. (2020) 46:109–18. doi: 10.3233/NRE-1
92963
47. Carter EW, Boehm TL, Biggs EE, Annandale NH, Taylor CE, Loock AK,
et al. Known for my strengths: positive traits of transition-age youth with
intellectual disability and/or autism. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil. (2015)
40:101–9. doi: 10.1177/1540796915592158
Frontiers in Psychiatry | www.frontiersin.org
Character Strengths
48. Zhang Y, Chen M. Character strengths, strengths use, future self-continuity
and subjective well-being among Chinese university students. Front Psychol.
(2018) 9:1040. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01040
49. Proyer RT, Gander F, Wellenzohn S, Ruch W. What good are character
strengths beyond subjective well-being? The contribution of the good
character on self-reported health-oriented behavior, physical fitness,
and the subjective health status. J Positive Psychol. (2013) 8:22–32.
doi,: 10.1080/17439760.2013.777767
50. Weziak-Bialowolska D, Bialowolski P, VanderWeele TJ, McNeely E. Character
strengths involving an orientation to promote good can help your health
and well-being. Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Am J Health Promot.
(2021) 35:388–98. doi: 10.1177/0890117120964083
51. Seligman MEP, Steen TA, Park N, Peterson C. Positive psychology
progress: empirical validation of interventions. Am Psychol. (2005) 42:874–
84. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410
52. Linley PA, Maltby J, Wood AM, Joseph S, Harrington S, Peterson C, et al.
Character strengths in the United Kingdom: The VIA inventory of strengths.
Pers Individ Differ. (2007) 43:341–51. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.004
53. Umucu E, Lo CL, Lee B, Vargas-Medrano J, Diaz-Pacheco V, Misra K, et al.
Is gratitude associated with suicidal ideation in veterans with mental illness
and student veterans with PTSD symptoms? J Nervous Mental Dis. (2022)
210:26–31. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001406
54. Lee B, Pfaller J, Iwanaga K, Chen X, Wu JR, Chan F. Core self-evaluations as a
mediator of the relationship between stress and quality of life in women with
multiple sclerosis. J Vocat Rehabil. (2020) 52:137–44. doi: 10.3233/JVR-191066
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2022 Umucu, Lee, Genova, Chopik, Sung, Yasuoka and Niemiec. This
is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums
is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited
and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not
comply with these terms.
11 February 2022 | Volume 13 | Article 863977